Figures and data in No relationship between frontal alpha asymmetry and depressive disorders in a multiverse analysis of five studies

Figures
Tables
Additional files

9 figures, 13 tables and 1 additional file

Figures

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Diagram describing the five studies included in this article (Studies I, II, III, IV, and V).

(A) Number of participants for each study and group (see Table 12 for details). (B) Stacked histograms showing the distribution of BDI or PHQ-9 scores in each study and each group. (C) Channel montage. Frontal channels used in cluster-based analyses are marked with gray dots. Channels used in channel-pairs analysis are marked with teal dots (F3–F4, F7–F8, and corresponding channels in the EGI montage). (D) Rest period length and scheme.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Analysis variants used (described in detail in *Variants of statistical analysis* section).

(A) Schematic depiction of given statistical contrast: group comparisons (left) vs regression (right). (B) Specification of each contrast against depression scores. Left panel shows a schematic range of depression scores for each contrast: diagnosed vs healthy controls (*DvsHC*) and sub-clinical vs healthy controls (*SvsHC*). Right panel shows the range of depression scores for data included in each linear contrast: regression on diagnosed subjects (*DReg*) uses only subjects with clinical diagnosis, while regression on all subjects (*allReg*) uses all subject groups. The color legend for the subject groups is presented below these figures. (C) Analysis space: AVG – channel level, average reference; CSD – channel level, current source density; SRC – source level, DICS beamforming. (D) Schematic depiction of analysis method: selected channel pairs versus all frontal channels with cluster-based correction for multiple comparisons.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Selected results for channel-pairs level analyses, depressed vs healthy controls (*DvsHC)* contrast.

Panels A and B show 2 of 3 significant channel pair results: average referenced F3–F4 channel pair for Studies I (A) and V (B). The remaining panels (**C and D**) show other channel pair analysis variants: specifically those that differ by exactly one parameter (underlined text) from the result presented in the panel A. Horizontal lines represent averages for each group, and shaded areas show standard error of the mean.

Figure 4 with 4 supplements

Download asset Open asset

Selected results of cluster-based analyses: topographies of *DvsHC* contrast effects in a reference by study matrix.

More positive (red) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) alpha asymmetry for diagnosed participants. More negative (blue) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) FAA for healthy controls. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1

Download asset Open asset

Results of cluster-based analyses for *allReg* contrast (regression on all subjects).

Topographies of effects are presented in a reference by study matrix. Color bar on the right presents color coding for the t values: more positive (red)/negative (blue) relationship between FAA and BDI. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots.

Figure 4—figure supplement 2

Download asset Open asset

Results of cluster-based analyses for *DReg* contrast (regression on diagnosed subjects).

Topographies of effects are presented in a reference by study matrix. Color bar on the right presents color coding for the t values: more positive (red)/negative (blue) relationship between FAA and BDI. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots.

Figure 4—figure supplement 3

Download asset Open asset

Results of cluster-based analyses for *SvsHC* (comparison between subclinical and healthy controls) contrast.

Topographies of different contrast effects in a reference by study matrix. More positive (red) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) alpha asymmetry for subclinical participants. More negative (blue) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) FAA for healthy controls. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots.

Figure 4—figure supplement 4

Download asset Open asset

An example of a more detailed visualization of asymmetry effects: group-level averages for DvsHC, Study V, AVG from F.

First row shows topography of average alpha power for both groups; second row shows topography of average alpha asymmetry for both groups.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Selected results of cluster-based analyses showing the influence of statistical control for confounding variables like age, gender (Studies I and V), and education (Study V).

(A) The logic of the topographical plots is the same as in Figure 4. (B) Swarmplots corresponding to studies in panel A showing the between-group difference in the selected confounding variables. Detailed results for analyses taking into account confounding variables can be found in Table 4.

Figure 6 with 4 supplements

Download asset Open asset

Selected results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data.

Heatmaps in the upper part of each panel represent regression t values for channel by frequency search space. More positive/negative t values indicate higher/lower power with higher BDI. Clusters are indicated in the heatmaps with white outline. In each panel we present two topographies below the heatmap: showing average effect for lower and higher frequency ranges determined by the positions of the clusters. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots in the topographical plots.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1

Download asset Open asset

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for *allReg* contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI on all subjects together).

Heatmaps in the upper part of each panel represent regression t values for channel by frequency search space. More positive/negative t values indicate higher/lower power with higher BDI. Clusters are indicated in the heatmaps with white outline. In each panel we present two topographies below the heatmap: showing average effect for 9–10 Hz and 11.5–12.5 Hz range respectively. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots in the topographical plots.

Figure 6—figure supplement 2

Download asset Open asset

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for *DReg* contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI restricted to the non-diagnosed subjects).

Heatmaps in the upper part of each panel represent regression t values for channel by frequency search space. More positive/negative t values indicate higher/lower power with higher BDI. Clusters are indicated in the heatmaps with white outline. In each panel we present two topographies below the heatmap: showing average effect for 9–10 Hz and 11.5–12.5 Hz range respectively. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots in the topographical plots.

Figure 6—figure supplement 3

Download asset Open asset

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for *DvsHC* contrast (comparison between diagnosed and healthy controls).

Heatmaps in the upper part of each panel represent t values for channel by frequency search space. More positive (red) t values indicate higher power in given channel and frequency for diagnosed participants. More negative (blue) t values indicate higher power in given channel and frequency for healthy controls. Clusters are indicated in the heatmaps with white outline. In each panel we present two topographies below the heatmap: showing average effect for 9–10 Hz and 11.5–12.5 Hz range respectively. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots in the topographical plots.

Figure 6—figure supplement 4

Download asset Open asset

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for *SvsHC* contrast (comparison between subclinical and healthy controls).

Heatmaps in the upper part of each panel represent t values for channel by frequency search space. More positive (red) t values indicate higher power in given channel and frequency for diagnosed participants. More negative (blue) t values indicate higher power in given channel and frequency for healthy controls. Clusters are indicated in the heatmaps with white outline. In each panel we present two topographies below the heatmap: showing average effect for 9–10 Hz and 11.5–12.5 Hz range respectively. Channels that are part of a cluster are marked with white dots in the topographical plots.

Figure 7 with 4 supplements

Download asset Open asset

Selected results of source level analyses showing spatial t value maps for respective contrasts.

Cluster limits are marked with white outlines, and corresponding cluster p-values are shown below each panel. Color bar at the bottom presents color coding for the t values.

Figure 7—figure supplement 1

Download asset Open asset

Results of source level analyses for *allReg* contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI on all subjects) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Cluster limits are marked with white outlines, and corresponding cluster p-values are shown below each panel. Color bar at the bottom presents color coding for the t values: more positive (red)/negative (blue) relationship between FAA and BDI.

Figure 7—figure supplement 2

Download asset Open asset

Results of source level analyses for *DReg* contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI restricted to diagnosed subjects) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Cluster limits are marked with white outlines, and corresponding cluster p-values are shown below each panel. Color bar at the bottom presents color coding for the t values: more positive (red)/negative (blue) relationship between FAA and BDI. Linear regression restricted to diagnosed subjects; NA: no cluster with p<0.05 is present.

Figure 7—figure supplement 3

Download asset Open asset

Results of source level analyses for *DvsHC* contrast (comparison between diagnosed and healthy controls) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Cluster limits are marked with white outlines, corresponding cluster p-values are shown below each panel. More positive (red) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) alpha asymmetry for diagnosed participants. More negative (blue) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) FAA for healthy controls.

Figure 7—figure supplement 4

Download asset Open asset

Results of source level analyses for *SvsHC* contrast (comparison between subclinical and healthy controls) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Cluster limits are marked with white outlines, corresponding cluster p-values are shown below each panel. More positive (red) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) alpha asymmetry for subclinical participants. More negative (blue) t values indicate more right-sided (less left-sided) FAA for healthy controls. NA: no cluster with p<0.05 is present.

Figure 8 with 2 supplements

Download asset Open asset

Results for channel pair analyses where studies including identical group contrasts (A) and linear contrasts (B) are combined.

Each row corresponds to one analysis on a single channel pair. The contrasts, studies, and channel pairs are labeled on the y axis. The black dots correspond to observed effect sizes in Cohen’s d/Pearson’s r, while the black lines indicate 95% confidence intervals for the effect size estimated using bias-corrected accelerated bootstrapping. The magenta/purple shapes represent bootstrap distributions and the white numbers printed on the distributions are Bayes factors for the null hypothesis (BF01). BF01 of 4 indicates that the data are four times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. BF01 between 3 and 10 are considered moderate evidence for the null hypothesis.

Figure 8—figure supplement 1

Download asset Open asset

Results for channel pair analyses with control for confounds where studies including identical group contrasts (A) and linear contrasts (B) are combined.

Each row corresponds to one analysis on a single channel pair. The contrasts, studies, and channel pairs are labeled on the y axis. The black dots correspond to observed effect sizes in Cohen’s d/Pearson’s r, while the black lines indicate 95% confidence intervals for the effect size estimated using bias-corrected accelerated bootstrapping. The magenta/purple shapes represent bootstrap distributions and the white numbers printed on the distributions are Bayes factors for the null hypothesis (BF01). BF01 of 4 indicates that the data are four times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. BF01 between 3 and 10 are considered moderate evidence for the null hypothesis.

Figure 8—figure supplement 2

Download asset Open asset

Results for channel pair gender × contrast interaction analyses on aggregated data with control for confounds.

In group contrasts (A) the interaction term is female * diagnosed; in linear contrasts (B) it is female * depression score. Each row corresponds to one analysis on a single channel pair. The contrasts, studies, and channel pairs are labeled on the y axis. The black dots correspond to observed effect sizes in Pearson’s r, while the black lines indicate 95% confidence intervals for the effect size estimated using bias-corrected accelerated bootstrapping. The magenta/purple shapes represent bootstrap distributions and the white numbers printed on the distributions are Bayes factors for the null hypothesis (BF01). BF01 of 4 indicates that the data are four times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. BF01 between 3 and 10 are considered moderate evidence for the null hypothesis.

Figure 9 with 2 supplements

Download asset Open asset

Selected results for aggregated source space analyses showing spatial t value maps for respective contrasts.

Cluster limits are marked with white outlines, and corresponding cluster p-values are shown below each panel. Color bar at the bottom presents color coding for the t values.

Figure 9—figure supplement 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 9—figure supplement 2

Download asset Open asset

Results for interaction analyses (gender × contrast) for aggregated studies in source space.

In group contrasts (DvsHC and SvsHC) the interaction term is female * diagnosed; in linear contrasts (DReg, allReg) it is female * depression score. Cluster limits are marked with white outlines, and corresponding cluster p-values are shown below each panel. Color bar at the bottom presents color coding for the t values.

Tables

Table 1

Results for all channel-pair analyses.

Each row represents two channel-pair results for a given contrast, study, and space combination; uncorrected for multiple comparisons. Electrode placement for each study is shown in Figure 1C. (N: number of participants included in given contrast; ES: effect size; Cohen’s d for group comparison and Pearson’s r for regression; CI: bootstrap 95% confidence interval for the effect size).

No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Selected electrodes without correction
					Pair 1 (F3–F4)				Pair 2 (F7–F8)
					t	p	ES	CI	t	p	ES	CI
1	DvsHC	I	avg	29 vs 22	−2.073	0.043	−0.573	[−1.135,–0.024]	−0.365	0.717	−0.101	[−0.644, 0.465]
2	DvsHC	I	csd	29 vs 22	0.132	0.896	0.038	[−0.550, 0.608]	0.553	0.583	0.153	[−0.415, 0.689]
3	DvsHC	III	avg	27 vs 21	0.904	0.371	0.247	[−0.316, 0.689]	−0.536	0.595	−0.145	[−0.760, 0.452]
4	DvsHC	III	csd	27 vs 21	0.849	0.401	0.226	[−0.307, 0.721]	−0.129	0.898	−0.035	[−0.590, 0.536]
5	DvsHC	IV	avg	22 vs 72	0.450	0.654	0.094	[−0.310, 0.510]	0.277	0.783	0.059	[−0.413, 0.463]
6	DvsHC	IV	csd	22 vs 72	0.767	0.449	0.212	[−0.287, 0.771]	−1.396	0.172	−0.345	[−0.808, 0.167]
7	DvsHC	V	avg	24 vs 29	2.823	0.007	0.743	[0.218, 1.255]	1.927	0.061	0.501	[−0.023, 0.998]
8	DvsHC	V	csd	24 vs 29	0.748	0.458	0.208	[−0.380, 0.775]	−0.727	0.471	−0.202	[−0.766, 0.370]
9	SvsHC	II	avg	23 vs 28	0.201	0.841	0.056	[−0.502, 0.614]	−0.662	0.511	−0.179	[−0.780, 0.381]
10	SvsHC	II	csd	23 vs 28	1.144	0.258	0.318	[−0.221, 0.827]	−0.199	0.843	−0.054	[−0.611, 0.508]
11	SvsHC	III	avg	33 vs 21	−0.852	0.398	−0.209	[−0.640, 0.306]	−1.328	0.190	−0.332	[−0.804, 0.216]
12	SvsHC	III	csd	33 vs 21	−1.181	0.244	−0.280	[−0.730, 0.219]	−1.094	0.280	−0.302	[−0.798, 0.219]
13	SvsHC	IV	avg	21 vs 72	1.359	0.184	0.346	[−0.198, 0.816]	1.247	0.219	0.254	[−0.138, 0.646]
14	SvsHC	IV	csd	21 vs 72	0.558	0.581	0.147	[−0.393, 0.655]	0.141	0.889	0.035	[−0.388, 0.605]
15	allReg	I	avg	54	−1.138	0.260	−0.156	[−0.397, 0.088]	−0.180	0.858	−0.025	[−0.394, 0.258]
16	allReg	I	csd	54	−0.540	0.591	−0.075	[−0.309, 0.167]	0.077	0.939	0.011	[−0.335, 0.280]
17	allReg	III	avg	91	0.545	0.587	0.058	[−0.105, 0.263]	−0.781	0.437	−0.083	[−0.271, 0.101]
18	allReg	III	csd	91	0.209	0.835	0.022	[−0.169, 0.207]	0.422	0.674	0.045	[−0.168, 0.225]
19	allReg	IV	avg	117	1.138	0.258	0.106	[−0.076, 0.264]	0.675	0.501	0.063	[−0.111, 0.212]
20	allReg	IV	csd	117	1.307	0.194	0.121	[−0.096, 0.312]	−1.024	0.308	−0.095	[−0.265, 0.093]
21	allReg	V	avg	53	2.489	0.016	0.329	[0.106, 0.517]	1.463	0.150	0.201	[−0.023, 0.409]
22	allReg	V	csd	53	0.857	0.395	0.119	[−0.127, 0.361]	−0.220	0.827	−0.031	[−0.262, 0.210]
23	DReg	I	avg	29	0.980	0.336	0.185	[−0.212, 0.531]	0.320	0.751	0.061	[−0.470, 0.522]
24	DReg	I	csd	29	−1.303	0.204	−0.243	[−0.540, 0.091]	−0.504	0.618	−0.097	[−0.501, 0.337]
25	DReg	III	avg	27	0.278	0.784	0.055	[−0.268, 0.426]	0.055	0.957	0.011	[−0.273, 0.238]
26	DReg	III	csd	27	0.407	0.688	0.081	[−0.254, 0.413]	1.347	0.190	0.260	[−0.047, 0.498]
27	DReg	IV	avg	22	1.754	0.095	0.365	[0.012, 0.643]	−0.114	0.910	−0.026	[−0.459, 0.427]
28	DReg	IV	csd	22	1.938	0.067	0.398	[−0.043, 0.632]	−0.415	0.683	−0.092	[−0.519, 0.351]
29	DReg	V	avg	24	1.497	0.149	0.304	[0.045, 0.563]	−0.367	0.717	−0.078	[−0.444, 0.285]
30	DReg	V	csd	24	0.789	0.438	0.166	[−0.264, 0.501]	0.635	0.532	0.134	[−0.320, 0.615]

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; avg – average reference; csd – current source density.

Table 2

Results for all channel-pair analyses corrected for confounds.

No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Selected electrodes corrected for confounds
					Pair 1 (F3–F4)				Pair 2 (F7–F8)
					t	p	ES	CI	t	p	ES	CI
1	DvsHC	I	avg	29 vs 22	−2.679	0.010	−0.789	[−1.413,–0.218]	−0.782	0.438	−0.230	[−0.691, 0.288]
2	DvsHC	I	csd	29 vs 22	0.269	0.789	0.079	[−0.501, 0.681]	0.305	0.762	0.090	[−0.404, 0.622]
3	DvsHC	III	avg	27 vs 21	0.204	0.839	0.064	[−0.642, 0.684]	−1.161	0.252	−0.366	[−0.994, 0.310]
4	DvsHC	III	csd	27 vs 21	−0.162	0.872	−0.051	[−0.691, 0.547]	−0.703	0.486	−0.221	[−0.998, 0.558]
5	DvsHC	IV	avg	22 vs 71	0.310	0.757	0.077	[−0.338, 0.504]	0.085	0.933	0.021	[−0.412, 0.450]
6	DvsHC	IV	csd	22 vs 71	0.978	0.331	0.244	[−0.250, 0.816]	−1.484	0.141	−0.370	[−0.842, 0.135]
7	DvsHC	V	avg	24 vs 29	1.862	0.069	0.540	[0.033, 1.044]	1.817	0.075	0.527	[−0.008, 1.101]
8	DvsHC	V	csd	24 vs 29	0.518	0.607	0.150	[−0.415, 0.742]	−0.722	0.474	−0.209	[−0.689, 0.235]
9	SvsHC	II	avg	23 vs 28	0.351	0.728	0.105	[−0.444, 0.746]	−0.654	0.516	−0.196	[−0.883, 0.450]
10	SvsHC	II	csd	23 vs 28	1.293	0.203	0.387	[−0.152, 0.943]	0.035	0.972	0.010	[−0.653, 0.532]
11	SvsHC	III	avg	33 vs 21	−1.169	0.248	−0.350	[−0.946, 0.285]	−1.768	0.084	−0.529	[−1.071, 0.029]
12	SvsHC	III	csd	33 vs 21	−1.382	0.173	−0.414	[−1.086, 0.160]	−1.197	0.237	−0.358	[−0.997, 0.212]
13	SvsHC	IV	avg	21 vs 71	1.058	0.293	0.269	[−0.232, 0.776]	0.466	0.642	0.118	[−0.293, 0.515]
14	SvsHC	IV	csd	21 vs 71	0.739	0.462	0.188	[−0.302, 0.649]	−0.263	0.793	−0.067	[−0.524, 0.483]
15	allReg	I	avg	54	−1.352	0.182	−0.188	[−0.440, 0.078]	−0.349	0.728	−0.049	[−0.369, 0.240]
16	allReg	I	csd	54	−0.431	0.668	−0.061	[−0.313, 0.187]	−0.019	0.985	−0.003	[−0.335, 0.304]
17	allReg	III	avg	91	0.233	0.816	0.025	[−0.156, 0.263]	−1.170	0.245	−0.127	[−0.313, 0.092]
18	allReg	III	csd	91	−0.005	0.996	−0.001	[−0.190, 0.204]	−0.060	0.953	−0.007	[−0.238, 0.224]
19	allReg	IV	avg	116	0.904	0.368	0.085	[−0.088, 0.237]	0.355	0.723	0.034	[−0.139, 0.197]
20	allReg	IV	csd	116	1.461	0.147	0.137	[−0.064, 0.316]	−1.300	0.196	−0.122	[−0.296, 0.059]
21	allReg	V	avg	53	1.685	0.099	0.236	[−0.014, 0.449]	1.544	0.129	0.218	[−0.034, 0.433]
22	allReg	V	csd	53	0.769	0.446	0.110	[−0.148, 0.339]	−0.058	0.954	−0.008	[−0.214, 0.185]
23	DReg	I	avg	29	0.767	0.450	0.152	[−0.324, 0.503]	0.265	0.793	0.053	[−0.452, 0.564]
24	DReg	I	csd	29	−1.273	0.215	−0.247	[−0.588, 0.156]	−0.506	0.617	−0.101	[−0.504, 0.437]
25	DReg	III	avg	27	−0.054	0.958	−0.012	[−0.434, 0.485]	−0.079	0.937	−0.018	[−0.425, 0.346]
26	DReg	III	csd	27	0.055	0.957	0.012	[−0.407, 0.408]	1.375	0.184	0.294	[−0.096, 0.614]
27	DReg	IV	avg	22	1.979	0.063	0.423	[−0.001, 0.719]	−0.062	0.951	−0.015	[−0.409, 0.473]
28	DReg	IV	csd	22	1.761	0.095	0.383	[0.004, 0.674]	−0.269	0.791	−0.063	[−0.538, 0.418]
29	DReg	V	avg	24	0.926	0.366	0.208	[−0.209, 0.565]	−0.707	0.488	−0.160	[−0.571, 0.278]
30	DReg	V	csd	24	0.723	0.478	0.164	[−0.345, 0.554]	0.298	0.769	0.068	[−0.569, 0.735]

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; avg – average reference; csd – current source density.

Table 3

Results for cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry space.

Each row represents cluster-based results for a given contrast, study, and space combination (N: number of participants included in given contrast; min t, max t: lowest and highest t value in the search space, respectively; n significant points: total number of significant points in the search space before cluster-based correction; n clusters: number of clusters found in given analysis; largest cluster size: number of channels participating in the cluster; largest cluster p: p-value for the largest cluster, NA means that no cluster was found in given analysis).

No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry space
No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Min t	Max t	n significant points	n clusters	Largest cluster size	Largest cluster p
1	DvsHC	I	avg	29 vs 22	−2.110	0.023	3	1	3	0.069
2	DvsHC	I	csd	29 vs 22	−0.720	1.983	0	0	NA	NA
3	DvsHC	III	avg	27 vs 21	−1.172	1.058	0	0	NA	NA
4	DvsHC	III	csd	27 vs 21	−1.258	1.875	0	0	NA	NA
5	DvsHC	IV	avg	22 vs 72	−0.751	2.069	1	1	1	0.345
6	DvsHC	IV	csd	22 vs 72	−1.600	1.142	0	0	NA	NA
7	DvsHC	V	avg	24 vs 29	−1.260	2.823	6	2	5	0.026
8	DvsHC	V	csd	24 vs 29	−2.901	1.425	2	2	1	0.156
9	SvsHC	II	avg	23 vs 28	−2.581	0.201	1	1	1	0.164z
10	SvsHC	II	csd	23 vs 28	−0.855	1.254	0	0	NA	NA
11	SvsHC	III	avg	33 vs 21	−1.410	1.021	0	0	NA	NA
12	SvsHC	III	csd	33 vs 21	−2.315	2.101	2	2	1	0.227
13	SvsHC	IV	avg	21 vs 72	−1.356	2.760	2	1	2	0.052
14	SvsHC	IV	csd	21 vs 72	−1.193	1.296	0	0	NA	NA
15	allReg	I	avg	54	−1.519	0.022	0	0	NA	NA
16	allReg	I	csd	54	−0.727	1.052	0	0	NA	NA
17	allReg	III	avg	91	−1.207	0.906	0	0	NA	NA
18	allReg	III	csd	91	−1.290	2.210	1	1	1	0.287
19	allReg	IV	avg	117	−1.807	2.153	1	1	1	0.202
20	allReg	IV	csd	117	−1.173	1.353	0	0	NA	NA
21	allReg	V	avg	53	−1.001	2.489	3	1	3	0.077
22	allReg	V	csd	53	−3.291	1.552	2	2	1	0.187
23	DReg	I	avg	29	−0.159	1.552	0	0	NA	NA
24	DReg	I	csd	29	−1.303	0.487	0	0	NA	NA
25	DReg	III	avg	27	−2.041	0.976	0	0	NA	NA
26	DReg	III	csd	27	−1.420	1.662	0	0	NA	NA
27	DReg	IV	avg	22	−1.155	1.754	0	0	NA	NA
28	DReg	IV	csd	22	−0.415	1.938	0	0	NA	NA
29	DReg	V	avg	24	−1.482	1.497	0	0	NA	NA
30	DReg	V	csd	24	−2.254	1.554	1	1	1	0.555

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; avg – average reference; csd – current source density.

Table 4

Results for cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry space corrected for confounds.

Each row represents cluster-based results for a given contrast, study and space combination (N: number of participants included in given contrast; min t, max t: lowest and highest t value in the search space, respectively; n significant points: total number of significant points in the search space before cluster-based correction; n clusters: number of clusters found in given analysis; largest cluster size: number of channels participating in the cluster; largest cluster p: p-value for the largest cluster, NA means that no cluster was found in given analysis).

No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry space corrected for confounds
No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Min t	Max t	n significant points	n clusters	Largest cluster size	Largest cluster p
1	DvsHC	I	avg	29 vs 22	−2.679	−0.149	5	1	5	0.023
2	DvsHC	I	csd	29 vs 22	−1.020	1.591	0	0	NA	NA
3	DvsHC	III	avg	27 vs 21	−1.506	1.361	0	0	NA	NA
4	DvsHC	III	csd	27 vs 21	−1.310	1.378	0	0	NA	NA
5	DvsHC	IV	avg	22 vs 71	−0.814	1.812	0	0	NA	NA
6	DvsHC	IV	csd	22 vs 71	−1.812	0.978	0	0	NA	NA
7	DvsHC	V	avg	24 vs 29	−1.618	2.341	3	3	1	0.327
8	DvsHC	V	csd	24 vs 29	−3.017	0.738	2	2	1	0.205
9	SvsHC	II	avg	23 vs 28	−2.622	0.351	1	1	1	0.177
10	SvsHC	II	csd	23 vs 28	−0.838	1.742	0	0	NA	NA
11	SvsHC	III	avg	33 vs 21	−1.768	1.218	0	0	NA	NA
12	SvsHC	III	csd	33 vs 21	−2.090	1.899	1	1	1	0.358
13	SvsHC	IV	avg	21 vs 71	−1.584	1.490	0	0	NA	NA
14	SvsHC	IV	csd	21 vs 71	−1.400	0.739	0	0	NA	NA
15	allReg	I	avg	54	−1.726	0.039	0	0	NA	NA
16	allReg	I	csd	54	−0.816	0.987	0	0	NA	NA
17	allReg	III	avg	91	−1.231	0.722	0	0	NA	NA
18	allReg	III	csd	91	−1.540	2.119	1	1	1	0.335
19	allReg	IV	avg	116	−1.804	1.852	0	0	NA	NA
20	allReg	IV	csd	116	−1.300	1.461	0	0	NA	NA
21	allReg	V	avg	53	−1.286	2.350	1	1	1	0.324
22	allReg	V	csd	53	−3.541	0.832	2	2	1	0.173
23	DReg	I	avg	29	−0.244	1.516	0	0	NA	NA
24	DReg	I	csd	29	−1.291	0.565	0	0	NA	NA
25	DReg	III	avg	27	−1.700	0.852	0	0	NA	NA
26	DReg	III	csd	27	−1.311	1.574	0	0	NA	NA
27	DReg	IV	avg	22	−1.173	2.728	1	1	1	0.121
28	DReg	IV	csd	22	−0.269	2.235	1	1	1	0.260
29	DReg	V	avg	24	−1.593	0.926	0	0	NA	NA
30	DReg	V	csd	24	−2.075	2.586	2	2	1	0.376

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; avg – average reference; csd – current source density.

Table 5

Results for all cluster-based analyses on standardized data.

Each row represents cluster-based results for given contrast, study, and space (N: number of participants included in given contrast). Results for cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry space (min t, max t: lowest and highest t value in the search space, respectively; n significant points: total number of significant points in the search space before cluster-based correction; n clusters: number of clusters found in given analysis; largest cluster size: number of channels by frequency points participating in the cluster; largest cluster p: p-value for the largest cluster, NA means that no cluster was found in given analysis).

No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Cluster-based analyses on standardized data
No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Min t	Max t	n significant points	n clusters	Largest cluster size	Largest cluster p
1	DvsHC	I	avg	29 vs 22	−1.453	1.434	0	0	NA	NA
2	DvsHC	I	csd	29 vs 22	−2.227	1.879	3	2	2	0.718
3	DvsHC	III	avg	27 vs 21	−1.999	2.326	2	1	2	0.468
4	DvsHC	III	csd	27 vs 21	−2.917	3.882	23	3	16	0.063
5	DvsHC	IV	avg	22 vs 72	−4.256	3.053	129	2	66	0.007
6	DvsHC	IV	csd	22 vs 72	−3.180	2.582	22	7	6	0.259
7	DvsHC	V	avg	24 vs 29	−2.516	2.267	21	3	15	0.223
8	DvsHC	V	csd	24 vs 29	−2.703	2.420	10	6	3	0.723
9	SvsHC	II	avg	23 vs 28	−1.685	2.185	1	1	1	0.774
10	SvsHC	II	csd	23 vs 28	−2.059	1.714	1	1	1	0.941
11	SvsHC	III	avg	33 vs 21	−1.906	1.946	0	0	NA	NA
12	SvsHC	III	csd	33 vs 21	−2.284	3.091	7	4	3	0.577
13	SvsHC	IV	avg	21 vs 72	−2.319	2.519	19	5	5	0.306
14	SvsHC	IV	csd	21 vs 72	−2.950	3.130	25	4	11	0.092
15	allReg	I	avg	54	−1.295	1.450	0	0	NA	NA
16	allReg	I	csd	54	−2.082	1.899	1	1	1	1.000
17	allReg	III	avg	91	−1.814	1.949	0	0	NA	NA
18	allReg	III	csd	91	−2.626	2.547	14	4	6	0.692
19	allReg	IV	avg	117	−3.406	2.701	75	4	40	0.079
20	allReg	IV	csd	117	−2.644	2.918	32	5	13	0.179
21	allReg	V	avg	53	−2.752	2.321	22	6	13	0.477
22	allReg	V	csd	53	−3.733	2.023	15	6	5	0.891
23	DReg	I	avg	29	−2.011	1.936	0	0	NA	NA
24	DReg	I	csd	29	−2.721	2.093	8	5	3	1.000
25	DReg	III	avg	27	−4.167	3.824	89	2	53	0.025
26	DReg	III	csd	27	−3.525	3.285	34	4	17	0.105
27	DReg	IV	avg	22	−1.802	2.213	1	1	1	0.888
28	DReg	IV	csd	22	−2.219	2.890	12	4	9	0.316
29	DReg	V	avg	24	−2.926	4.155	58	7	18	0.354
30	DReg	V	csd	24	−3.551	3.084	46	9	14	0.387

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; avg – average reference; csd – current source density.

Table 6

Results for all cluster-based analyses on standardized data corrected for confounds.

No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Cluster-based analyses on standardized data corrected for confounds
No.	Contrast	Study	Space	N	Min t	Max t	n significant points	n clusters	Largest cluster size	Largest cluster p
1	DvsHC	I	avg	29 vs 22	−1.766	1.716	0	0	NA	NA
2	DvsHC	I	csd	29 vs 22	−2.007	1.614	0	0	NA	NA
3	DvsHC	III	avg	27 vs 21	−1.387	1.896	0	0	NA	NA
4	DvsHC	III	csd	27 vs 21	−3.345	3.054	17	4	6	0.567
5	DvsHC	IV	avg	22 vs 71	−4.295	3.304	143	2	72	0.006
6	DvsHC	IV	csd	22 vs 71	−3.095	2.854	33	5	12	0.179
7	DvsHC	V	avg	24 vs 29	−1.982	1.976	0	0	NA	NA
8	DvsHC	V	csd	24 vs 29	−2.026	2.798	10	4	7	0.772
9	SvsHC	II	avg	23 vs 28	−1.511	1.841	0	0	NA	NA
10	SvsHC	II	csd	23 vs 28	−2.059	1.876	1	1	1	1.000
11	SvsHC	III	avg	33 vs 21	−2.964	2.422	22	5	10	0.374
12	SvsHC	III	csd	33 vs 21	−2.424	3.562	12	4	4	0.865
13	SvsHC	IV	avg	21 vs 71	−2.667	2.858	34	3	31	0.113
14	SvsHC	IV	csd	21 vs 71	−2.389	3.317	23	3	10	0.273
15	allReg	I	avg	54	−1.404	1.614	0	0	NA	NA
16	allReg	I	csd	54	−1.752	2.155	4	2	2	1.000
17	allReg	III	avg	91	−2.119	1.963	5	1	5	0.612
18	allReg	III	csd	91	−2.558	2.825	25	3	17	0.112
19	allReg	IV	avg	116	−3.414	3.009	92	4	54	0.038
20	allReg	IV	csd	116	−2.571	3.112	32	6	11	0.216
21	allReg	V	avg	53	−1.942	2.057	1	1	1	1.000
22	allReg	V	csd	53	−3.005	2.362	11	5	5	0.945
23	DReg	I	avg	29	−1.902	1.990	0	0	NA	NA
24	DReg	I	csd	29	−2.583	2.088	9	5	4	0.955
25	DReg	III	avg	27	−3.938	3.530	70	4	36	0.073
26	DReg	III	csd	27	−3.198	4.098	39	7	21	0.035
27	DReg	IV	avg	22	−2.213	2.662	4	2	2	0.659
28	DReg	IV	csd	22	−3.056	3.114	16	4	10	0.265
29	DReg	V	avg	24	−3.200	4.246	84	7	27	0.266
30	DReg	V	csd	24	−3.533	3.378	78	7	36	0.092

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; avg – average reference; csd – current source density.

Table 7

Results for all source level analyses.

Each row represents source level results for given contrast, study, and space (N: number of participants included in given contrast). Results for cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry source space (min t, max t: lowest and highest t value in the search space, respectively; n significant points: total number of significant points in the search space before cluster-based correction; n clusters: number of clusters found in given analysis; largest cluster p: p-value for the largest cluster, NA means that no cluster was found in given analysis).

No.	Contrast	Study	N	Source level analysis
No.	Contrast	Study	N	Min t	Max t	n significant points	n clusters	Largest cluster size	Largest cluster p
1	DvsHC	I	29 vs 22	−1.906	2.404	2	1	2	0.489
2	DvsHC	III	27 vs 21	−2.557	1.158	29	4	14	0.267
3	DvsHC	IV	22 vs 72	−3.921	1.151	320	2	316	0.010
4	DvsHC	V	24 vs 29	−2.612	0.943	24	1	24	0.207
5	SvsHC	II	23 vs 28	−0.909	1.321	0	0	NA	NA
6	SvsHC	III	34 vs 21	−1.809	1.341	0	0	NA	NA
7	SvsHC	IV	21 vs 72	−2.339	0.679	11	1	11	0.340
8	allReg	I	54	−2.319	1.549	20	1	20	0.367
9	allReg	III	92	−2.232	0.290	21	2	20	0.343
10	allReg	IV	117	−2.220	1.211	10	1	10	0.466
11	allReg	V	53	−2.644	1.201	15	3	6	0.574
12	DReg	I	29	−2.292	1.150	41	2	22	0.328
13	DReg	III	27	−2.624	−0.375	26	3	18	0.335
14	DReg	IV	22	−1.216	2.064	0	0	NA	NA
15	DReg	V	24	−2.068	1.758	0	0	NA	NA

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects.

Table 8

Results for all source level analyses corrected for confounds.

Each row represents source level results for given contrast, study, and space (N: number of participants included in given contrast) Results for cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry source space (min t, max t: lowest and highest t value in the search space, respectively; n significant points: total number of significant points in the search space before cluster-based correction; n clusters: number of clusters found in given analysis; largest cluster p: p-value for the largest cluster, NA means that no cluster was found in given analysis).

No.	Contrast	Study	N	Source level analysis corrected for confounds
No.	Contrast	Study	N	Min t	Max t	n significant points	n clusters	Largest cluster size	Largest cluster p
1	DvsHC	I	29 vs 22	−1.416	2.057	1	1	1	0.708
2	DvsHC	III	27 vs 21	−2.161	1.704	3	2	2	0.555
3	DvsHC	IV	22 vs 71	−3.685	1.066	365	2	346	0.011
4	DvsHC	V	24 vs 29	−2.630	0.287	64	3	46	0.231
5	SvsHC	II	23 vs 28	−0.814	1.911	0	0	NA	NA
6	SvsHC	III	34 vs 21	−1.770	1.526	0	0	NA	NA
7	SvsHC	IV	21 vs 71	−2.732	−0.083	58	1	58	0.192
8	allReg	I	54	−1.846	1.143	0	0	NA	NA
9	allReg	III	92	−2.195	0.698	15	1	15	0.391
10	allReg	IV	116	−2.313	0.910	44	4	19	0.375
11	allReg	V	53	−2.901	0.317	79	4	36	0.264
12	DReg	I	29	−2.164	1.010	15	2	11	0.428
13	DReg	III	27	−2.991	0.175	66	3	63	0.186
14	DReg	IV	22	−1.397	1.818	0	0	NA	NA
15	DReg	V	24	−2.893	1.784	22	1	22	0.352

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; nonDReg – linear regression for only the non-diagnosed subjects.

Table 9

Results for analyses on data aggregated across studies: tests on frontal asymmetry on selected channel pairs.

Each row represents a given contrast × reference × control for confounds combination. N: number of participants included in given contrast, control for confounds: whether the FAA data was residualized with respect to confounding variables (age, gender and education); ES: effect size, measured as Cohen’s d for DvsHC and SvsHC contrasts and Spearman’s r for Dreg and allReg contrasts; CI: bootstrap confidence interval for the effect size; BF01: Bayes Factor for the null hypothesis.

No.	Contrast	Space	N	Control for confounds	Aggregated channel pair analyses
					Pair 1 (F3–F4)			Pair 2 (F7–F8)
					ES	CI	BF01	ES	CI	BF01
1	DvsHC	avg	102 vs 144	−	0.147	[−0.111, 0.396]	3.831	0.098	[−0.161, 0.338]	5.405
2	DvsHC	avg	102 vs 143	+	−0.011	[−0.264, 0.244]	7.042	−0.006	[−0.266, 0.240]	7.042
3	DvsHC	csd	102 vs 144	−	0.188	[−0.069, 0.449]	2.597	−0.100	[−0.354, 0.164]	5.319
4	DvsHC	csd	102 vs 143	+	0.103	[−0.159, 0.362]	5.236	−0.164	[−0.417, 0.108]	3.300
5	SvsHC	avg	77 vs 121	−	0.065	[−0.236, 0.359]	5.780	−0.025	[−0.320, 0.240]	6.250
6	SvsHC	avg	77 vs 120	+	0.024	[−0.269, 0.315]	6.211	−0.144	[−0.447, 0.140]	4.016
7	SvsHC	csd	77 vs 121	−	0.053	[−0.223, 0.355]	5.952	−0.108	[−0.372, 0.179]	4.878
8	SvsHC	csd	77 vs 120	+	0.053	[−0.222, 0.350]	5.952	−0.110	[−0.389, 0.179]	4.831
9	DReg	avg	102	−	0.188	[0.006, 0.354]	1.387	0.007	[−0.186, 0.188]	8.065
10	DReg	avg	102	+	0.175	[−0.018, 0.348]	1.742	−0.029	[−0.211, 0.155]	7.752
11	DReg	csd	102	−	0.099	[−0.072, 0.260]	4.975	0.065	[−0.136, 0.252]	6.579
12	DReg	csd	102	+	0.051	[−0.131, 0.216]	7.092	0.048	[−0.157, 0.255]	7.194
13	allReg	avg	315	−	0.085	[−0.017, 0.184]	4.651	0.029	[−0.080, 0.126]	12.5
14	allReg	avg	314	+	0.041	[−0.063, 0.143]	10.87	0.001	[−0.120, 0.104]	14.085
15	allReg	csd	315	−	0.059	[−0.054, 0.166]	8.333	−0.026	[−0.141, 0.082]	12.821
16	allReg	csd	314	+	0.055	[−0.056, 0.168]	8.772	−0.048	[−0.158, 0.059]	9.901

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects; avg – average reference; csd – current source density.

Table 10

Results for analyses on data aggregated across studies, cluster-based permutation tests on frontal asymmetry in the source space.

Each row represents the result for given contrast × control for confounds combination. N: number of participants included in given contrast, control for confounds: whether the FAA data was residualized with respect to confounding variables (age, gender and education), min t, max t: lowest and highest t value in the search space, respectively; n significant points: total number of significant points in the search space before cluster-based correction; n clusters: number of clusters found in given analysis; largest cluster p: p-value for the largest cluster, NA means that no cluster was found in given analysis.

No.	Contrast	N	Control for confounds	Aggregated source level analyses
No.	Contrast	N	Control for confounds	Min t	Max t	n significant points	n clusters	Largest cluster size	Largest cluster p
1	DvsHC	102 vs 144	−	−2.719	0.956	178	5	100	0.077
2	DvsHC	102 vs 143	+	−2.846	0.908	211	5	116	0.066
3	SvsHC	77 vs 121	−	−1.831	−0.11	0	0	NA	NA
4	SvsHC	77 vs 120	+	−1.871	0.182	0	0	NA	NA
5	DReg	102	−	−2.387	1.376	31	3	25	0.328
6	DReg	102	+	−3.095	1.354	112	3	68	0.155
7	allReg	315	−	−3.044	0.411	174	6	160	0.067
8	allReg	314	+	−3.107	0.282	235	6	195	0.054

DvsHC – diagnosed and healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical and healthy controls; allReg – linear regression for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression for only diagnosed subjects.

Table 11

Number of significant results compatible with the traditional FAA effect partitioned into analyses and contrasts.

If one or more such results have been found for a given cell, then the p-value for the binomial test is also shown.

	Number of significant results congruent with the FAA effect
	Channel pairs N = 120	Cluster correction N = 60	Source space N = 30
DvsHC	2/32, p=0.48	1/16, p=0.56	2/8, p=0.057
SvsHC	0/24	0/12	0/6
DReg	0/32	0/16	0/8
allReg	0/32	0/16	0/8

Table 12

Descriptive statistics for each study presented in the article (N – number of participants, M – mean score, SD – standard deviation, BDI-I and BDI-II – Beck Depression Inventory I and II, PHQ-9 – Patient Health Questionnaire-9).

	Study I (N=51)
	Diagnosed	Healthy Controls, BDI-I ≤ 5	Subclinical	Unclassified
N	29	22	-	-
Age	M = 27.66, SD = 7.13	M = 23.68, SD = 2.83	-	-
Age	19 - 47 range	20 - 33 range	-	-
Gender	9 male, 20 female	11 male, 11 female	-	-
BDI-I score	M = 20.93, SD = 8.21	M = 2.00, SD = 1.48	-	-

	Study II (N=76)
		Undiagnosed (N=76)
	Diagnosed	Healthy Controls, BDI-I ≤ 5	Subclinical, BDI-I ≥ 10	Unclassified, 5 < BDI-I < 10
N	-	28	25	23
Age	-	M = 25.32, SD = 6.46	M = 24.44, SD = 5.08	M = 25.22, SD = 6.78
Age	-	18 - 43 range	19 - 38 range	18 - 40 range
Gender	-	8 males, 20 females	4 males, 21 females	9 males, 14 females
BDI-I score	-	M = 2.29, SD = 1.72	M = 17.56, SD = 8.13	M = 7.91, SD = 1.16

	Study III (N=91)
	Diagnosed	Undiagnosed (N=64)
	Diagnosed	Healthy Controls, BDI-II ≤ 5	Subclinical, BDI-II ≥ 10	Unclassified, 5 < BDI-II < 10
N	27	21	34	9
Age	M = 27.19, SD = 7.23	M = 24.29, SD = 4.99	M = 25.06, SD = 6.58	M = 26.78, SD = 8.74
Age	19 - 42 range	19 - 41 range	18 - 44 range	22 - 49 range
Gender	6 males, 21 females	7 males, 14 females	10 males, 24 females	2 males, 7 females
BDI-II score	M = 34.26, SD = 9.18	M = 2.24, SD = 1.70	M = 24.06, SD = 10.08	M = 6.78, SD = 0.97

	Study IV (N=117)
	Diagnosed	Undiagnosed (N=95)
	Diagnosed	Healthy Controls, BDI-II ≤ 5	Subclinical, BDI-II ≥ 10	Unclassified, 5 < BDI-II < 10
N	22	72	21	2
N	(12 past MDD, 10 present MDD)	72	21	2
Age	M = 18.91, SD = 1.34	M = 19.00, SD = 1.23	M = 18.43, SD = 0.81	M = 18.00
Age	18 - 24 range	18 - 23 range	18 - 21 range	ages 18, 18
Gender	8 males, 14 females	33 males, 39 females	3 males, 18 females	1 males, 1 females
BDI-II score	M = 21.82, SD = 5.70	M = 1.60, SD = 1.48	M = 22.95, SD = 4.25	M = 6.50, SD = 0.71

	Study V (N=53)
	Diagnosed	Healthy Controls, PHQ-9 ≤ 5	Subclinical	Unclassified
N	24	29	-	-
Age	M = 30.88, SD = 10.37	M = 31.45, SD = 9.15	-	-
Age	16 - 52 range	19 - 52 range	-	-
Gender	13 males, 11 females	11 males, 13 females	-	-
PHQ-9 score	M = 18.33, SD = 3.50	M = 2.66, SD = 1.80	-	-

Table 13

Summary of the contrasts (DvsHC – diagnosed vs healthy controls; SvsHC – sub-clinical vs healthy controls; allReg – linear regression between FAA and depression questionnaire score for all subjects together; DReg – linear regression only for the diagnosed subjects) and confounds (age, gender, and education) used in each study.

	STUDY
	I	II	III	IV	V
	Contrast type
DvsHC	+		+	+	+
SvsHC		+	+	+
allReg	+		+	+	+
DReg	+		+	+	+
	Control for confounds
gender	+	+	+	+	+
age	+	+	+	+	+
education		+	+		+

Additional files

Transparent reporting form: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/60595/elife-60595-transrepform-v1.pdf
Download elife-60595-transrepform-v1.pdf

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Mendeley

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Aleksandra Kołodziej
Mikołaj Magnuski
Anastasia Ruban
Aneta Brzezicka

(2021)

No relationship between frontal alpha asymmetry and depressive disorders in a multiverse analysis of five studies

eLife 10:e60595.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60595

Share this article

Cite this article

Diagram describing the five studies included in this article (Studies I, II, III, IV, and V).

Analysis variants used (described in detail in Variants of statistical analysis section).

Selected results for channel-pairs level analyses, depressed vs healthy controls (DvsHC) contrast.

Selected results of cluster-based analyses: topographies of DvsHC contrast effects in a reference by study matrix.

Results of cluster-based analyses for allReg contrast (regression on all subjects).

Results of cluster-based analyses for DReg contrast (regression on diagnosed subjects).

Results of cluster-based analyses for SvsHC (comparison between subclinical and healthy controls) contrast.

An example of a more detailed visualization of asymmetry effects: group-level averages for DvsHC, Study V, AVG from F.

Selected results of cluster-based analyses showing the influence of statistical control for confounding variables like age, gender (Studies I and V), and education (Study V).

Selected results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data.

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for allReg contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI on all subjects together).

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for DReg contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI restricted to the non-diagnosed subjects).

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for DvsHC contrast (comparison between diagnosed and healthy controls).

Results of cluster-based analyses on standardized data for SvsHC contrast (comparison between subclinical and healthy controls).

Selected results of source level analyses showing spatial t value maps for respective contrasts.

Results of source level analyses for allReg contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI on all subjects) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Results of source level analyses for DReg contrast (linear regression between FAA and BDI restricted to diagnosed subjects) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Results of source level analyses for DvsHC contrast (comparison between diagnosed and healthy controls) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Results of source level analyses for SvsHC contrast (comparison between subclinical and healthy controls) showing spatial t value maps for regression analyses.

Results for channel pair analyses where studies including identical group contrasts (A) and linear contrasts (B) are combined.

Results for channel pair analyses with control for confounds where studies including identical group contrasts (A) and linear contrasts (B) are combined.

Results for channel pair gender × contrast interaction analyses on aggregated data with control for confounds.

Selected results for aggregated source space analyses showing spatial t value maps for respective contrasts.

Selected results for aggregated source space analyses showing spatial t value maps for respective contrasts.

Results for interaction analyses (gender × contrast) for aggregated studies in source space.

Results for all channel-pair analyses.

Results for all channel-pair analyses corrected for confounds.

Results for cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry space.

Results for cluster-based permutation test on frontal asymmetry space corrected for confounds.

Results for all cluster-based analyses on standardized data.

Results for all cluster-based analyses on standardized data corrected for confounds.

Results for all source level analyses.

Results for all source level analyses corrected for confounds.

Results for analyses on data aggregated across studies: tests on frontal asymmetry on selected channel pairs.

Results for analyses on data aggregated across studies, cluster-based permutation tests on frontal asymmetry in the source space.

Number of significant results compatible with the traditional FAA effect partitioned into analyses and contrasts.

Descriptive statistics for each study presented in the article (N – number of participants, M – mean score, SD – standard deviation, BDI-I and BDI-II – Beck Depression Inventory I and II, PHQ-9 – Patient Health Questionnaire-9).

Transparent reporting form

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)